Treachery

One of the occupational hazards of being a counselor-priest is that you are privy to any number of unpleasant secrets. Over the years I have heard countless stories of marital break down. It is a painful thing to watch and it is hard to hear. The twin roles of counselor and preacher collide at such times. How to save the marriage? How to spare these people the injuries and pains? How to heal and set them free to live in abundance? And there is nothing sadder than the failed marriages of church people, folks who are publicly commited to Jesus Christ.

A common theme in all of the divorces is a sense of betrayal. One or another of the partners takes it upon himself/herself to dissolve the bond, to annul the covenant, to walk away from the life partnership. People feel that there was treachery and that they have been duped.

With that in mind, I read the old familiar story of Isaac, Jacob and Esau with a tender heart. Old blind Isaac has been duped by his wife and son and given the blessing to the younger. One senses this is God's preference, but the narrative is not so straightforward. Instead, we read about the wiles of the characters and see an old man taken advantage of by those closest to him. Esau, a simple man skilled in physical feats but less adept at 'palace intrigue', is a pitiable figure. He returns from the hunt, having done what his father commanded only to discover that the blessing has been given to another. A weeping Esau cries out, "Have you only one blessing, father? Bless me also, father!"

In prayerful meditation I paused to let the scene sink in. The mighty, hairy man, weeping, stood before his empty handed father. There was no blessing. None. Jacob had snatched it up and made it his own. And as I pondered this situation I realized that the founding father of Israel (in fact, a man called Israel!) came to his place by treachery and deceit. The messiness of life....

Less we think all is well for Jacob, he lives in an exile for many years, he is duped by his father-in-law and suffers mistreatment. His later years are filled with tragedy as his sons deal treacherously with him (in the Joseph story). His life, while much blessed, is also painfilled. There is a price to be paid for treachery. And, ironically, Esau re-appears, however briefly, as a rich warlord who is full of forgiveness. So with no blessing he turned out to have quite the life. Details being scant we can not say much more than that.

Perhaps the hope to be drawn is that no matter how bad things are now, God can impact our futures. It is well to recall that even bad things can be shaped into good outcomes (though not without heart break, suffering and tears). Our infidelities are the creators of much horror, but God redeems even those false acts and uses them to create new situations. With that in mind, a priest-counselor can continue to walk with the wounded folks and whisper a word of solace and hope: "In the end, God finds a way. Do not despair."

Jonah & God changed His mind 1

Sunday I preached on Jonah. The reading included the line God changed His mind about wiping out the Assyrian city. I preached on the Hebrwe word (which means: repentance, regret, change mind, etc.) and asked what the Bible is telling us about God. This is something I have written on before and it is something that I wrestled with in my conversations with an atheist some weeks ago.

The point I made was that most Christians are so tied up thinking about the whale (and arguing) that they never really look at the point of the story. In surveying commentaries and websites I was struck by two things. No one addressed God changing His mind. However, many writers made 'historicity' the primary focus of their discussion. Let me be clear, I really get the whole obsession with "did it really happen?" In an age where so much aggressive agnostic/atheistic attacks are taking place, doubts are rampant among Believers and so we need a foundation. However, we create our own problems, sometimes, when we end up defending things which we do not need to defend. Saying that Jonah is history, rather than a parable, is not more faithful. It is not holier or more courageous or more dedicated to God. In fact, it misses the point. The Truth is in every generation countless 'prophets' have neglected the call and countless 'undeserving' folks have repented. It happens over and again. Those of us with TVs know that fictional shows constantly tell stories that are 'not' historical yet reflect what happens time and time again.

Whether Jonah is fact or fiction, it is also literature. And the question before us is "what does this piece of literature tell us about God?" Therefore, what does it mean that Almighty God, the Creator of heaven and earth, The Unseen, Perfect, All-Knowing, source of all that is can change His mind?

In Ancient Greece there were two sets of stories about God/gods. One was told by philosophers. They reflected logically, parsed the meaning of words, pondered what this means as applied to God. To this day even Christians who reject philosophy are impacted by the thoughts of these ancient people. They set the preconceptions with which we approach the text and inform how we read and understand. The work the philosophers did is often very dry and technical and can be more than we can handle intellectually.

The second set of stories is the Greek myths. These stories are filled with all manner of characters, interesting situations, foibles, heroism, all manner of evil and even some virtue. Early Christian apologists often attacked paganism because the religious myths were filled with such things. In any case, narratives about the gods were terribly different from philosophical reflections about God.

The point being, when we talk about God we end up employing two different modes of communication. The philosophical approach is filled with questions of being (ontology). It seeks to address the essence of Who God is. The story/myth approach reflects on questions of activity. It answers every day questions about gods in the world. The Jewish/Christian corrects the errors of tha Greek myths, even while acknowledging that once God enters human time and space something seems different.

The Judaeo-Christian Bible is not intended to be either philosophy or myth. Even so, there are still some parallels. Stories of God use human language to convey the unconveyable. So when we read "God changed His mind/repented" we need to ask what is being told to us. It is anthropomorphism, i.e., using human language to talk about God. The question remains, what does God changing His mind mean? My answer is Christmas (incarnation) and Good Friday (the Cross). I will flesh that out more tomorrow.

What is status of 'the future'?

Got an email from a theology classmate about yesterday's blog. In light of his input I wanted to explain my beliefs a bit more.

Yesterday in Bible study we read the final chapter of 2 Kings. In it, the epic journey of God's People lies in ruins. The descendents of the slaves freed from Pharaoh's cruel hands entered the Promised Land with a covenant promse from God. "If you obey, I will prosper you; if you disobey and act like the former occupants (Caananites, etc.) then I will treat you as I treated them and wipe you off the face of the map."

2 Kings ends with a small remnant of Jews headed back to Egypt. The journey has come full circle. The Kingdom of Israel is no more. The Davidic monarchy is in exile, under the thumb of the Babylonian king, never to rule again. The rich land is now in the possession of another Empire. The promise has been kept, a promise of destruction for sin.

The book of Jeremiah, ironically, contains much more detail and information. Chapters 24 and 25 (of 2 Kings) are found, in toto, in the book of Jeremiah. They seemed to have been lifted and copied there. Or perhaps, whoever penned the book of Jeremiah also penned 2 Kings? [I assume it was a group process, but I am not ancient scholar so its best I not embarass myself!] At any rate, in Jeremiah, God makes an offer. The remnant is invited to remain in the land, to live there faithfully, under the rule of the Babylonian King. If the people do so, says Jeremiah, they will be blessed. However, the decision to go to Egypt will be doom. That decision will result in destruction, even annihilation. The people will be no more.

Consistent with the ongoing narrative (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel, 1&2 Kings) the people declare that whatever God says they will do. The reader is weary hearing this empty pledge again and again. God also has grown weary! No sooner do the people make the declaration of obedience then they reject the words of Jeremiah and decide to go off to Egypt; never to be heard from again in the Biblical literature.

God offers the people a choice. Their choice will create (or better, co-create with GOD) a future. In Deuteronomy God says, "I offer you Life of Death, choose Life." Some claim that God has not really made such an offer. He knows what the people will do, He knows what will happen, in some real sense, they tell us, God is the author of their decision. In such a view, the narrative is, at some level, a sham. God's words are devoid of meaning in any normal sense. His offer is not an offer at all, because in the end His choice is to lead the people to destruction. [and I am very aware that there are verses throughout the OT which fits this model] However, I think that God is not playing games. I believe the offer is real. I believe that the people of Judah stand at a crossroads. I believe that two opportunities lie before them, two genuine options. I believe that the choice can be made for either.

I also believe that God has granted humans 'dominion' in His creation. He has made a world where His own divine perogatives are somehow diminished and withdrawn. God is not present, from the begining of Genesis, all the time. He comes and goes. He has created an empty space, a place where humans can live and choose. That is how love is possible, after all (and I have written on this in the past). Puppets cannot love, even if the puppet master makes them say and do things which sound and look like love. Because God is not controlling (by His own choice) every detail of every event (He could if He wanted to but chooses not to for the greater good of His creation); therefore, we live in a world where every detail of the future is not cast in stone. God still has a plan, a final destination, in mind. God is still at work, most often in a clandestine manner, barely discernable for those who seek Him, totally hidden from those who do not. So God is present and active, but He is also absent and removed. After all how could he intervene if He is already controllling everything?

The key point, as I see it (and I am no great intellect so this may be something I should not even dare to address) is that the future is yet to be written. The choices made and the events which take place inform the future possibilities. The future is fluid but God is ever shaping it into the desired outcomes (i.e., Salvation, Justice, Peace, etc.) which He seeks. Some day He plans to bring it to a close.

Our freedom can work in league with our Heavenly Father, or we can choose to oppose Him. In the end, we are held accountable for our decisions and our behaviors. Within the confines of time, there is a sense in which 'we will just have to see what happens.' Yet, we can still be confident that God will find a way to achieve His intended goals. It is not necessary for Him to micromanage every detail in order to make that happen. The cost of human freedom is manifest in the cross. Literally, loving us is killing God! Yet, He has the power to overcome sin and death (resurrection) so Life conquers Death. That is why we can have hope.

Jeremiah's Complaint

Yesterday's Bible study was a brief run-through of Jeremiah. We are studying 2 Kings and the chapters we are reading correspond to Jeremiah's career. We are attempting to go a bit deeper into the history of the text by looking at some orignal sources.

As part of our overview, we read Jeremiah 12. I provide the text below:
"You will be in the right, O Lord, when I lay charges against you; but let me put my case to you. Why does the way of the guilty prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?"

One of the arguments against our Christian faith is this very thing. People ask how God could allow such injustice to flourish. The great irony, to me, is that the very book which we call "God's Word" and which we identify as "God's Revelation" contains the same complaint.

While it is hard to fathom the injustice and unfairness. It appears that over 2500 years ago the same questions gnawed at a man who was deeply committed to God. A man called a prophet and revered as God's special servant. Many of us join Jeremiah in crying out to heaven, but I wonder how many share his humility? Jeremiah begins acknowledging that God will be in the right. In other words, there is a mystery at work. There is more than we can know or understand. We are facing something beyond our grasp. [Perhaps, in the end, the difference between a believer and an unbeliever? Believers do not understand it all, but they still acknowledge God is right.]

The story does not address Jeremiah's complaint. Or at least it does not seem to at first read. Rather than provide a theodicy (a defense of God's goodness in the face of evil) it instead portrays God as a hard-nosed drill sargeant who, to paraphrase, warns Jeremiah that "you ain't seen nothing yet!" "How," God asks, "will you run with horses if you are tired running with men? If you cannot walk on level ground how will you deal with thickets?" The Lord shows little mercy or kindness, as popularly understood in our current God-talk. Rather, exhorting and challenging, one gets the impression that the Almighty is demanding strength and courage from the frustrtaed prophet. The message continues, that Jeremiah will be betrayed by family and friend as well. Jeremiah ponders a sublime mystery while God responds with an updateof a new crisis from the real world!

It is a question which many of us ask and ponder. Why do the evil flourish. In the end, at least in Jeremiah 12, the answer seems to be: 'focus on being faithful'. That is hard to do, but the Lord seems not to care. If we cannot handle struggles now, how will we pass through the worse things headed our way? As pampered Christians living in luxury and ease, it is well for us to read, meditate upon and digest this dialgoue between God and Jeremiah. It just isn't easy!

Egypt and the Jews

I heard that an angry mob attacked the Jewish embassy the other day. My understanding is the ambassador was able to escape. I heard Egyptian police were not helpful in the process. It appears to be another sign of Israel's precarious situation.

With that in mind, I was struck by the first reading from the Revised Common Lectionary at our Saturday evening eucharist today. It is the famous story of the Exodus. I do not know, but would not be surprised to find out, that some Egyptians do not believe the Exodus really happened or do not think it mattered at all. Certainly, the crowds chasing the ambassador out of his embassy would not see themselves as in conflict with God's people.

The Exodus text (14:19-31) is simple in its presentation. "the Lord saved Israel," "Israel saw the great work that the Lord did," "so the people feard the Lord and believed the Lord." There are some who see the current events in the Middle East with anticipation. Is this, they ask, the beginning of the end of the world? I do not know. Rumors of war are in the air. If it isn't the end of the world it is certainly possible that it is going to be a bad moment for the world.

Yet God is the God who saves. We know that and can trust it. I love the Psalm verse, "pray for the peace of Israel." So I do. I hope tonight you will as well.

Adam, Eve, History, Truth (6)

In the Genesis 2 account, after God has formed the man out of dust, we read that He breathes into the man and the man becomes a nephesh. This word has multiple meanings (soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion) and I want to focus on one in particular: appetite.

In a series of stimulating lectures by an OT professor over a decade ago, we were taught that the Hebrew root of the word meant open. The illustration he used was the open mouth of a baby bird. That image stunned me because it reversed my view of the pre-Fall creation. The idea that we came into the world "hungry" from the beginning is a different kind of idea. It is certainly different from the idea that we were complete and whole and static. Instead, even before the Fall, it seems that we had needs and desires, an appetite.

A few verses later we read that it was not good for the man to be alone. This, too, because it is so familiar, can be overlooked. If there were perfect bliss in the pre-Fall state, then why is it not good? The reality is, the 'adam  had desires and needs. At least one, companionship, was not fufilled. We know he got hungry, there was a garden full of food. It does not say much about sleep, he slept when the material for the woman was scooped from his side/rib. Perhaps he did get tired and slept at other times as well?

All this to say, some of what we see as the burdens of life may in fact be part of the original plan. Hunger, desire, need.... Maybe even before the Fall there was struggle. Maybe struggle makes us grow and develop. Perhaps the difference is, post-Fall, our intimacy with God has been damaged and the fruit of our labors has been cursed by our sin. Maybe that is why it is so hard to believe. Maybe faith is the greatest loss from the Fall. Or maybe it is love. We see how quickly the man and woman damage each other, the brother murders brother. Perhaps the Fall  has diminished out capacity to trust, hope and love.

I think these stories can and should penetrate us. We need to ponder them, less as a means to attack and destroy others, but rather as a mode of encounter. Did God speak these words to us? I think so. I think herein we find an insight into the Truth of life. But it is a God who is not at our own beck and call and not as a God who is less than us. It is insight into a SOMEONE who far exceeds our capacity to know Him or understand Him. I have reflected this week on Genesis in the hopes that people would enter into the depth of the text. I also hope that the authority and truth of the Word can be respected even as we try to understand the nature of the communication and the reality that it is divinely inspired literature.

Adam, Eve, History, Truth (5)

http://www.getreligion.org/2011/08/fringe-catholics-in-the-news-again/

The story (above) about "Fringe Catholics who believe in geocentric universe" was timely in light of this week's reflections. In the article, from a blog on how religion is covered in media (and covered poorly!), the author is pointing out that the Roman Catholic Church has a right to identify its membership. What was interesting to me, was this group, be it Roman or not, is advocating that the earth is the center of the universe. This view point is, of course, the Bible's version, and in days gone by that debate was the decisive one between "church" and "science." It is noteworthy, that currently we hear little about Evangelicals being fired from schools for teaching that the sun revolves around the earth. Why is that?

The teaching of evolution is a much more recent phenomenon. Most Christians do not know history. Many pride themselves on that fact. Ignorance of history, however, is widespread, so I am not picking on my co-religionists here. It just means that the arguments today are not contextualized in the wider view of things which history affords. Also, the science of evolution has produced a philosophy of evolution. The two interpenetrate, but they are not the same thing. Evolution as philosophy expands far beyond the reach of science.While I am sure the processes of life do look like evolution, it is clear to me that evolution as a theory does not explain everything. There are holes in the theory. That is the nature of human explanations. I have read numerous books & blogs by any number of highly educated scientists which has illustrated the places where evolutionary theory falls short. I am also a (catholic) Christian. We have a creed which declares "I believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth." When dismissive people mock my hesitance to embrace evolution I remind them that my faith makes clear that we are NOT the result of accidental processes. There is a SOMEONE behind this whole process.

Do I think the Bible explains it all? NOPE! And I would argue that it does not try. Adam and Eve have two sons. One kills the other. The murderer, Cain, is exiled. But he makes a plea, "My punishment is too great... You have banished me from the soil and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wander on earth, anyone who meets me may kill me." So God puts a mark upon him and promises him protection. Then Cain leaves the presence of the Lord and settles east of Eden in the land of Nod.

So the obvious question, "who are these other people?" I know the popular answer is Adam and Eve had other kids. But does the text sound like that is the issue? Why would Cain not say, "I  must flee from my brothers and sisters, for they will know of my deed and avenge my brother"? IF the point of the story is to explain that every living person was from Adam and Eve, would it not make sense to spell it out? I know, earlier Eve is call the mother of all the living. I get that. What I do not get is why the story sidesteps that issue. Why is it "Cain knew his wife" but there is no explanation of who his wife is and where she came from? Why does it not say, so Cain took his sister and she became his wife?

Perhaps, the story is about sin. It is about how human nature, soiled by evil, grew worse. Maybe it illustrates that those who disobey God soon kill their brother? That right relationship with God is needed to have right relationship with humans? Maybe it is an allegory about the danger of farming (Cain) versus shepherding (Abel)? Whatever the case, as one reads these chapters it is obvious that the main point is not to explain how Adam and Eve populated the earth. I daresay it is not even a secondary or tertiary point. It is just assumed that people are there. Cain founds a city, the first city, named after his son Enoch. Where did all the folks come from? No mention is made. Perhaps we are to take a signal from that. Within a few generations we hear about copper and iron (Tubal-cain). Once again, history indicates that the iron age is not so close to the dawn of humanity. What to do with that?

If we want to  hear the word of God, then we must listen to God. It is not more faithful to claim that a mystical text is not mystical. It is not more faithful to read a mythical explanation text (so common across all cultures) and read it as something different than what it is.  It is not more faithful to make a text into a modern geology, history or science text when it is an ancient explanatory text. There is a message here in Genesis it just isn't biological. A couple of centuries ago Christians accepted that it was not a message about a flat earth, covered with a dome, sitting on columns, with all the stars, moon and sun rotating around it. We accepted it and moved on. Now we are in the painful period of dealing with another "assault" on what we "thought was the case." Christians do well to balance their defense of the faith against evolutionary philosophy with a willingness to let science be science and the texts of the Bible be what they are. I do not know if the reflections this week have been helpful for people struggling with these issues. I do know that God reigns and all will be well, someday, for those who trust Him. 

Adam, Eve, History, Truth (4)

I knew the story of Adam and Eve quite well long before I read it in the Bible. It first appeared in children's books. It was a staple of my early Catholic education. It received catechism treatment, that is, it was filtered through teaching truths about God and humankind. This is not a bad thing, but it means that the actual text is not encountered. There is, however, one problem: was it perfectly blissful in the Garden?

Trying to read the text without all the preconceived ideas about 'how it was' is difficult. After all, I already knew it before I read it. But already in Genesis 1 we run across some words which make it possible that all was not bliss in the days before sin. Here is God's word to the (hu)man (the Hebrew word is 'adam) ("male and female He created them")

"Be fruitful and multiply" This is the first command from God. It is repeated to Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
"fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion"

• subdue (kabash) comes from the root to trample under feet, to make subject (the next four times the word appears it refers to the military conquests of Israel). Jeremiah uses the word a couple of times to refer to making men and women slaves. Lastly, in Esther, it refers to a man forcing himself on a woman. [I recall an expression of threat as a child "I'll put the kabash on you" which is no doubt related to this usage.]  
• dominion (radah) is equally strong: to rule, to subjugate, to tread down, to dominate. In several instances the leaders of Israel are warned to respect God and not dominate their fellow Israelites.

I think that from the beginning, we are being told, there was effort expected. It seems that the earth was not so compliant and the work of humanity more challenging than the stories I was told as a child. Greater minds than mine need to ponder the texts and do the linguistic analysis, but I see nothing which indicates that in the beginning humans were on a permanent vacation and life was pleasure island!

The same is true of the second account in chapter 2. Adam is a tiller of the earth in Genesis 2:15, he is supposed to work (abad = to labor, to work, to serve) and keep/guard/watch over/protect (shamar). Once again, the text seems to indicate that there was work and that there was a need to care for, even protect, the Garden. What will change with the Fall is the results of the labor. The earth will be cursed and the results of the work will be opposed by thistles and thorns. Things are much worse.

Some may ask, what difference does it make? Well, for one, if humans always had to work, even struggle with the earth, then there is less disonance between the Biblical account and the 'scientific worldview' then we are led to believe. Human sin complicates mattes and makes things worse, but there does not seem to be an idea that the world was "perfect" prior to the Fall. This also means that work is not a curse, but actually part of the original state. The curse is the opposition to our work, not the labor itself.

This will have repurcussions on how we understand our final destiny as well. If we are called to return to an Eden-like existence in God Kingdom someday, perhaps it will include effort and work. Perhaps we are best when we face and overcome challenges. I do not know completely. What I do know is if you actually read the Bible it sometimes says unexpected things. It is God's word, so we do well to listen to it, to ponder and pray and be transformed by it.

Adam, Eve, History, Truth (3)

What is the point of the Adam and Eve story if it is not merely giving us the historical facts? First of all, let's look at the story.

We read that God formed (like a potter) man (adam) from the dust (afar) of the ground (adamah). There is a play on the Hebrew words here (adam//adamah). The joy of Hebrew is the constant use of such puns and allusions. Most of it does not get picked up in English translation. There are, however, some theological points to reflect upon.

The intimacy of creation is portrayed with the image of forming. To take and touch and manipulate is an involved process. One might call it a labor or work. If this is a metaphor (and it is) what is it inviting us to believe? I think the potter image lies behind the text, an image which Isaiah will pursue in his own prophecies. I think the language of shaping and forming is helpful for expressing our connectedness to God.

The idea of humans being composed of dust is also fascinating. One criticism of evolution is that it reduces humans to high functioning apes. Let me be clear, I believe that philosophical evolution is in error. I do not have time to lay that out here. I believe God CREATED heaven and earth. I do not believe it is accidental. That said, I also believe the act of creation is reflected in the creation. In that sense, the process probably 'looks' like what is called evolution. If God used the earth to form man, is it possible to understand that formation as taking place over a long period of time? Can the image be a metaphor for something that looks like the theories of science? Once again, I am asking questions of the text. I think we need to ask if a faithful reading can include this.

The word for dust is also interesting. Dust has multiple meanings and includes rubbish. We have some sense of this based on the word "dust pan" which is used to collect what we sweep up from the floor. The word dust appears several times in Genesis. It is used here to indicate from what the man is created and to what man will return at death (3:19). Then it is part of the curse on the serpent (you shall eat dust on your belly). Later God tells Abraham (13:16) and Jacob (28:14) that their descendents will be like the dust (lots and lots!). I think, however, the most important use is Genesis 18:27.

In Genesis 18 Abraham is arguing with God about Sodom. He is trying to prevent God's judgment on the wayward city. It is a remarkable case of driving a deal, as Abraham makes one slice after another, on the number of righteous needed to save the city. However, as Abraham begins the negotiation, he says, "I who am ashes and dust am speaking to the Lord." This is a dep theological statement, and I think it reflects the creations accoun.

The creation account is a reminder of our tenuous existence. It is a reminder that no one is great, no one is powerful, everyone is temporary. It is an invitation to recognize our dependence upon God for existence and serves as a harsh condemnation of those who see no need of God. The story is clear, even if it is not considered a detailed historical account. I think we are called to humility; to understand we are of earth and will return to earth, to understand that we must turn to the Creator for life. I fear the power of the revelation is lost when it is instead used to debate the actual process by which humans were created.

Adam, Eve, History, Truth (2)

What is literature? I think that question is fundamental when reading Genesis, especially the creation accounts.

Certainly I read the Adam and Eve story as straight history for most of my life. The question is, is it straight history? That question really has no bearing on Divine Inspiration. No one doubts that the Bible contains many different kinds of writing. The Bible is full of poetry, preaching, images and allusions. It is written with symbolic significance. It is full of puns and makes reference to things which are lost on us. As I argued in my last post, historical facts are not the full extent of truth. [Let me illustrate: proving through documentation from Roman and Jewish sources that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact crucified outside Jerusalem and buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea would certainly be historically significant. Not that I doubt any of it, but it would be useful in dealing with the skeptics who claim Jesus never existed. However, there is no document or archaealogical find which can ever prove that the crucified Jesus saved the world from sin. Understand? That is revealed truth. Further more, the factual details (did Jesus have help carrying the cross? John 19:17 "and carrying the cross by Himself" vs. "they compelled a passerby...to carry His cross...Simon") are interesting, but make no difference to the Truth of the atonement. The atonement is true whether the historical details are accurate or not. In fact, in this case one senses that the Truth of the event is shaping the telling of the story and John is making the point that Jesus Alone is carrying the cross because He is the Savior... In other words, details about events are impacted by the meaning of the event. These are theological narratives trying to tell us something, and it is much more that mere gossip.]

So, let us say, in theory, that the story of Adam and Eve has something in common with the creation stories of American Indians or Vikings. How do we imagine that those peoples, untouched by Divine Revelation, constructed their stories? What purpose did their stories serve? Can the human process of telling the story of creation and the beginning of humanity offer any insight on Israel? Is it a denial of God to ponder such things?

Now let us think about the ancient (pre-Abraham) stories of what we call The Middle East. There are many collections of the stories of creation from Iran, Iraq, Egypt, and other peoples in these areas. Is it possible that the stories of Israel, our Bible stories, were written with these stories in mind? Remember, the Jews were part of this world. The ancestors of the Bible people existed for a long time before God and Abraham.

It does not make me think less of God or trust His word less to think that the ancient Israelites were telling a story which borrowed elements from the stories with which they were familiar from their neighbors. Further, it does not cause me a problem to think that what God reveals to us through the story is a corrective of the stories which the other people told. That, to me, is the point. We are not familiar with those other stories, or we assume that they have myths while we have history. BUT, that is not what the Bible says about the creation account.

I am arguing that Adam and Eve is true. But I have come to see that the context is not contemprorary discussions about the history of the world. It is an ancient setting with its own rules about how one should talk about such things. So, it is clearly possible to say that the purpose of the Adam and Eve account is theological. And if theological, then it is best understood on its own terms. We should not twist the story to answer questions we have (or demand it prove points we want to make). No. It is Divinely inspired. The word addresses us, on its terms not ours. I think, sometimes, we Christians have it backwards. SO to read Adam and Eve the way God intended is the goal. Assuming it was intended as straight history, I think, is not so clear. At any rate, it is not helpful for Christians to harshly attack each other on this issue baed on assumptions which may not be right.

Adam, Eve, History, Truth (1)

I like blogs because I get a sense of what is going on with other people. Yesterday I ran across three(!) blogs in a row on Adam and Eve. One, an English philosopher of science and Christian apologist, has long been among my favorite writers. He writes about the age of the earth, using analysis of Scripture:
http://agentintellect.blogspot.com/2011/02/bible-and-age-of-universe-part-1.html

The second is a friend of a friend. She is an evangelical who is seriously engaging her doubts about the particular Christian worldview in which she was raised. She and many of her commentators, are no longer at 'home' in their old view. They wonder what it means. She writes here.
http://thinkandwonderwonderandthink.blogspot.com/

The last one I recently ran across. I think he is part of a movement trying to get back to a purer understanding of Jesus. He is responding to Al Mohler on Adam and Eve here:
http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/2011/08/25/the-beginning-of-the-gospel-rjs/

I am a priest (preacher/teacher) who has studied the Bible for thirty five years. I am not, however, a Biblical scholar. I have not read all the religious texts written in the Ancient Near East prior to 500BC. I also do not have complete dexterity with the Hebrew text. But I have read books by people who have this knowledge. And I have read, studied and prayed about it for years. The issue of Adam and Eve is a difficult one. So many people equate their faith in God with a particular way of approaching Scripture. If you mess with anything their entire faith structure collapses. This is unfortuate, unnecessary and, to be blunt, our own fault. Let me start with the fault issue first.

Since I was a teenager, I have heard many Christians make the claim, "If a single word of the Bible is incorrect, then the entire book cannot be trusted." That is a powerful statement. It conveys, very strongly, a sense of how important inerrancy is. But there is a problem, it assumes that the only thing we can trust is something which cannot make even a single mistake. That is simply not true. Errors in detail do not negate the entire communication in any other area of life, so why would it with the Bible. Does the message: "God made us. God saved us. God wants us to be in faithful, loving, obedient relationship with us" really depend on an accurate count of dead and wounded in a battle between Caananites and Israelites? REALLY? The central message of the Bible is false if it turns out that the census numbers are not accurate? Why would any Christian create that sort of problem for faith for another Christian?

And that is the growing problem, especially for Evangelicals. It does not take very long to find things in the Bible which might be considered "errors." In fact, by Genesis 2 there is already one big, fat, glaring contradiction:

• Genesis 1:9-13 "Then God said, Let the earth put forth vegetation...And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation." This is from day three. On the sixth day God made humans. Very clear.
• Genesis 2:4-7 "In the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up---then the Lord formed man from the dust of the ground.

Now, clearly there are some issues with order here. What came first, vegetation or humans? It makes me mad when a young Christian thinks that this issue is a deal breaker for their faith. Now some clever Christians will look at this and come up with a convuluted theory of how these two fit together. (And I often enjoy convuluted theories myself) But what I am not fine with is when they use a different criteria to criticize the Koran or other religious texts than they do the Bible. That is being dishonest. It also means that we must mess with the text to protect it.

So what then do I recommend? Well, to begin with, get rid of the idea that to be trustworthy the Bible must be "inerrant". OR, if you want to hold inerrancy, then define it (This goes back to a post a couple days ago about the meaning of words). The problem is "inerrant" means "no mistakes". But what is an inerrant text? The Bible is literature, not math. Literature is, in part, art. There are a wide variety of literary forms, each with its own rules. For example, ever notice how often in movies it is raining? Rain is a literary image. So the appearance of rain in a movie or book has more than meterological significance. It symbolizes. In the Bible (especially in an ancient, pre-scientific culture) the straightforward meaning of a text is understood in the straightforward way of thinking of those times. And we need to get clear, literal is not more true than symbolic. To say "it is 93 degrees" is not more true than saying "it is hotter than hell today." In fact, the latter conveys a subjective experience that the mere measure of temperature doesn't. That is why the words, "it is only symbolic" are fighting words for me (and I use the term fighting symbolically. I will not actually hit someone. I may not even argue with them. But I do think that it is silly and ignorant and that is what I mean by "fighting words"!)

I think that we need to seriously look at the word 'inerrant.' We also need to stop setting our kids up for a fall. We need to ask what we think the Bible is. How did it get written? Where and by whom? What was the process of composition? What was it reacting against? What was its audience? What is the author trying to tell us?????
Well, there a thousand questions but you get the point.

So to begin. Did the ancient authors of Genesis not notice the difference in order (vegetation & man)? In other words, was this an error? Did some later copyist make a mistake and rearrange things? (and if he did, how does that impact the claim of inerrancy? Does it matter that the originals are inerrant when we do not have the originals?) Is this a mistake? OR....

Were there originally two different stories which circulated in different times and communities? Were the two stories only written down after years and years of the oral story being passed around by people who live, not with books, but with spoken words? People who wander around deserts with tents and flocks. People who want to know: "why am I here?" and "what does it mean?" Is it possible that the stories, hundreds of years later, were edited and composed as written stories? Written down at a time when Israel actually had cities and resources to compose books (a very costly adventure in time and money). Maybe the first of the stories was written by a priest, composed to explain the importance of the Sabbath (hence seven days) and to emphasize we live in a world of order (hence the sterotyped language and neat divisions), under threat by chaos, but sustained and protected by God. And perhaps those priests were using the creation texts of their neighbors (who are also their racial relatives, Abraham was an Aramean!) as a foil. Maybe they were correcting the errors of pagan belief and that is why we see the similarities and differences. Perhaps the first account ends with the creation of man as the summit of creation. It tells us that this was God's final act. It makes clear to us 'who we are' and 'what are relationship with Him is' (image and likeness, to rule the earth). It makes clear that He creates by speaking a word because He is not like the gods of the pagan neighbors. He is not one among many. He is different from the gods they worship. His creation is not a cosmic battle of gods but a creative word spoken by a singular, all powerful God.

Perhaps in Genesis 2 man is created first because that author is making the same point. This time man is fashioned from dirt to remind us of our destiny (dead bodies disintegrate). The intimacy of God is emphasized here by using the image of a potter (rather than the distant God who "speaks and it is") Man is made first because the ultimate purpose of creation is man, and everything follows from that. Maybe it isn't about revealling the order of creation (vegetation or man). Maybe first (ultimate cause) or last (final goal), in this case, actually mean the same thing. Maybe each author tells us that "man is IMPORTANT to God." In that case, there is no contradiction. The two stories are telling us the same thing (i.e. the point of the story) using different images... Maybe we can let our kids read what the Bible is actually telling us (not make the Bible say what we want it to say). Maybe we can stop telling our kids that if they ever run across something that does not fit "perfectly" then the Bible must not be true. Maybe we can find a way. More on the 'first couple' in the days ahead.

Council of Jerusalem

We are reading about the early church's struggle with what to do with Gentiles. The question, posed by Luke in his account, is whether Gentiles must be circumcised and take on the Jewish law in order to enter the church. It is a question answered and dealt with so long ago that it is difficult to interest contemporary Christians in the discussion. The reason why Acts 15 is important, is it reveals to us something of how God works. The first thing we note is that Jesus did not leave clear instructions to His disciples about this issue. In the debate, no one is quoting Jesus. Clearly, the three dozen verses are a very brief summary of a much longer, more complex event. Acts 15:7 "after much discussion" cannot convey all that took place to a non-participant.

"Some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up" and argued that Gentile converts should take up the Law of Moses. Conservative Christians, of whom I know many, rarely seem to  have much sympathy for this group. I do not know why. Certainly, this is a faithful and conservative group. Too often we write off Pharisees as 'bad guys' interested in self-justification and full of hypocricy. In reality, they were generally devout and faithful. These were the Jews most likely to be students of Scripture. They were also the ones most intent on living a life of authentic faith. Did they mess up and sin, well, yes, who hasn't (besides Jesus)? At any rate, this is a crisis. Can someone become part of the people of God without being a Jew first?

I am most struck by the realization of how God works. According to Acts, God does not give any prophetic word. No one has a revelation from on high. No theophany takes place where God Himself reveals the answer to the question. Instead, men reflect upon their experiences and discuss their thoughts. What role did Scripture play in this? There is a quote from Amos 9:11-12, but it follows the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Old Testament) which is slightly different than the Masoretic Text (which is Hebrew). I do not want to get sidetracked, but we all know that translations do not always agree.

Did the Pharisee Christians not have Biblical passages as well. One assumes they quoted many. One can also assume that the other side had more than one verse of Scripture to refer to as well. In the end, the Bible was not enough to resolve the issue. Much is made of the works of God among the Gentiles. At last, Peter/Simon speaks. That is the turning point of the meeting.

God has used human beings and human argumentation to reveal His will. It is a messy way to do things. Couldn't God just tell us and be done with it? The final decision is made. "Let's not make things too hard for the Gentiles who are turning to God." There are still some expectations. No sexual immorality. No idolatry. No eating blood (Providentially, we studied this in Sunday School last week, in the Noah story in Genesis. God imposed that rule on all humans after the Flood. It is not Jewish Law, it is God's Law for all.) Saved by faith means behaviors follow. No escape from that.

So here is the foundation for the "catholic" understanding of authority in the church. Many times I hear people differentiate between "God's rule" and "Man's rule." Generally, it is in reference to some decision made by church leaders and usually the person disagrees with the decision. While it is too complex for me to deal with here, there is no doubt in my mind that the distinction between "God" and "Man" in these matters is not so easy to discern. God seems satisfied to used fallible people and fallible instituions to slowly shape the world in the form He desires. The apostles and elders declare that their decision "seems good to the Holy Spirit and to them." That has been the problem ever since. People claiming the Holy Spirit have taught all manner of things. There has been endless disagreement. Some Jews who believed in Jesus in the first century disengaged from the broader Gentile Church. For centuries they lived their faith in Jesus while maintaining the Old Testament commands from God. What will God do with such people, who sincerely think that they are the faithful ones?

Churches are a messy thing. They are messy because people are in them and people run them. They are messy because the stock answer, "Let God lead us" ignores one fundamental fact. God leads us in and through humans. There is no where to go, including the Bible, including Tradition, including prayer to get the final and definitive answer on everything. People argue and disagree because things are not always so clear. On the other hand, some people use that to claim that things which are clear are not. But until Jesus returns to establish HIS reign, you and I will hash it out in our various congregations and churches. And it will be messy. And God will work through it. And God WILL attain His goals.

David and Jonathan Gay?!

We have been reading I Samuel this week in Evening Prayer. Because I have done Bible studies on the OT books the last couple of years I am much more familiar with these texts. So when we read these sections now I have some context for thinking about them. Jonathan, to me, is one of the finest characters in the Bible. While David is involved in any number of offensive activities, Jonathan shines as a man of incredible courage and integrity.

Which is why I am going on a rant. Memories can work on their own. Sometimes we have to work hard to recall data. Other times there are associations made which come of their own volition. They are called triggers. (For example, the word trigger makes me think of Roy Rogers' horse. Just popped in my head, no effort)

Because human minds (&brains) work that way it is important to take care in how we form memories. Pure things are easily polluted and ruined. Take a single tooth out of a smile and it is suddenly ridiculous. A black smudge on a white dress gains all the attention, even if 99% of the dress is pristine.

The story of Jonathan's faithfulness in I Samuel 19&20 is heart rending. King Saul, enraged with jealousy, shares with his son and inner group that he wants them to kill David. Saul recognizes David is a threat to his throne. Saul already knows God has rejected him as king, Samuel made that clear. Now he further complicates his situation by standing against God and clinging to his power.

I can imagine the knot in Jonathan's gut as he heard the words. I can also imagine the terror. Saul has been very unpredictable. One moment at peace with David, then suddenly he decides he must die. Even for warriors, such events must be unnerving. Jonathan is making a decision which could cost him his life. Nothing is said of his feelings toward his father. Having read the book through I know that he will stand by his father's side to his death. Jonathan must have struggled mightily.

Jonathan speaks out for his friend, defending him to Saul's face. Logic is useless in the face of passion. So Jonathan successfully convinces his father to relent, but Saul's decision that David 'shall not die' is short lived. After another successful battle against Israel's enemies, David returns (the people's favorite) and Saul attempts to kill him with a spear. David flees for his life.

Jonathan and David conspire together to determine the next course of action. As David hides in Ramah, Jonathan comes to  him. They work out a plan so that Jonathan can secretly inform David of the situation. Jonathan will shoot arrows at a target near David's hiding place. What he says to the boy who is his "arrow-fetcher" will be a code for whether David should stay or flee.

Two sentences from the Sacred Writ stand out to me:

• And Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
• behold, the Lord is between you and me forever

Love. Jonathan, we are told, loved David. What other explanation for his choices? Jonathan was crown prince. Jonathan was in line to take Saul's place. Jonathan was on the brink of great and wonderful things. Yet he gave it all up to support the one man who could take it all from him. Why?

Two reasons. Love and faith. He believed God had chosen David. He loved David. That is what people who love and serve God do. They submit. That is what friends do. They take joy in the success of a friend rather than seek their own self interest.

So here is the rant. Why ruin a story of faith and love by turning it into an issue of same sex attraction? Why reframe this story as a gay love affair? Why make it into something else than what the text says?

Ever since 2003, this story has been changed for me. At that time I heard gay marriage justified and one of the arguments raised was Jonathan and David. My initial reaction of shock and disbelief have been worn away. The unthinkable has been thought. Something that had never crossed my mind was now an association. Time and again I have heard this "proof" until the story of Jonathan's self sacrificial love has become the (failed) argument to justify for gay sex.

Is it really necessary to make everything into gay sex? EVERYTHING? Does friendship have to be reduced to sexual attraction? Is it possible to imagine a world where stimulation and pleasure are not the only thing that matter? Can we think it possible that sometimes people have their minds on something else?

Our consumer, individualistic culture has made a comodity of most everything. The Episcopal Church has made a commitment to embrace the culture (in the name of "incarnational"). The effort to embrace has had other consequences. The culture has changed the church more than the church has changed the culture. The Epsicopal has been secularized. The sacred texts are de-sacralized and reduced to "stories of believing people from another era." The goal, preach Jesus to the world, has been reshaped into "promote tolerance, especially advocating for all things related to homosexuality." The list goes on, but anyone half paying attention already knows these things and more.

What frustrates me is the fog in my own mind. I think the challenge Jonathan could be has been dulled. The idea that 'love is self gift' is replaced with pondering other things, things which are not edifying. The effort to combat these alternative interpretations is itself a frustration. Do I really want to spend so much time and energy around issues of gay marriage? Even if the intent is noble and faithful, it still leads one away from the text and its message, back into the world of church politics and conflicts. In the end, whatever one says, if it is not the TEC party-line, is rejected as hate speech.

So, my rant. They have taken a sad story, yet an inspirational story, of faith, friendship, sacrifice and reduced it to a (faux) prop for their obsession with sex, especially homo-sex. They have done it enough that now the text is associated, to some extent, with that issue in my mind. How unfortunate. So I blog on it, which may end up leading other people to do the same thing. Perhaps I have aided their cause?

Yet Jonathan is a model. A model of purity and love. Someone who seeks God's will and way. I can stand with Jonathan and model his behavior (even if a poor imitation). I can decide to stand against those who advocate for that which God has rejected, whatever it is. I can do battle with the forces aligned against his kingdom. And I can love, purely and selflessly. I can love men and women without reducing love to impulses related to my own sexual pleasure. I can reject a cultural (dis)value which is ruining people by sexualizing everything. I can try to be innocent and pure and holy.

I hope, someday, that this Biblical text will be, once again, about our response to Messiah. I hope Jonathan is, again, the metaphor for selfless, loving commitment to God's annointed king (David, a metaphor for Jesus). I hope that some day we can read the story and hear the voice of Jesus ("anyone who does not love Me more than father, or mother....is not worthy of Me"). I hope that the story will inspire us to heroic acts of faithful virtue. I hope it will be pristine. Pure. A noble story about noble discipleship whatever the cost. I hope it will be a powerful narrative about obeying God and loving your friends, even when it is painful. I hope that this reflection is a step in that direction.

God and Numbers Game

All three readings today provide fertile ground for meditation. I want to write about 1 Sam 13:19-14:15 because the story is about Jonathan. In my studies of the Old Testament the last three years there has been no character as appealing to me as Jonathan. He seems much more noble and honorable than either Saul or David, the two kings. He works against his father's interests by supporting David, yet in the end, as the successor, it is really his own interests against which he works. He does it all because he believes that David is God's choice and he loves David. That is a good man!

To see such humility in a man of such violent courage is a rare thing. No where is his faith and courage more manifest than in today's reading. While the army of Israel is "hiding in their caves" Jonathan approaches an enemy encampment. He says to his armor bearer, "if they call us up to meet them, then we know God has delivered them into our hands." That was the 'sign' in his mind. [It sounds ilke an invitation to a massacre to me.]

At stories end, Jonathan has mowed through about twenty men (the sort of thing usually reserved to movie heroes) and fear sweeps through the Philistine camp. Here, however, is the verse which caught my eye:

• For nothing can hinder the Lord from saving by many or by few.

As I often say (complain?), we live in challenging times for Christians. Traditional marriage is being replaced far and wide. The UN announced its commitment to gay "marriage." NY passed it, now NJ is ready to. We also know that people who believe in traditional marriage are identified as haters.

Churches, in every denomination, seem to be shrinking and in decline. And the members are older. Those in the church are frequently less than zealous. It is probably the case that the majority of Christians do not read the Bible in a normal week. Prayer does take place, but it seems much prayer is of the request variety, rather than thanks, praise or seeking God's will. By many measures it looks, if not bleak, at least not good.

One theme of the OT is the idea that God can do great things with small groups. The David and Goliath story is the gold standard for that, but Gideon is another example. Jonathan, today, is certainly another. And there are endless other examples. God can do great things with small groups and little people. Often times, churches can get so caught up in the latest marketing craze that they give up the mission and ministry to achieve "success." I am certainly affected by that temptation. Weekly attendance can become a measure of a minister's self worth. Certainly it is a measure of something, but the focus needs to remain, first and foremost, on loving, serving, worshipping God. We cannot quit because we think our resources are insufficient. We can and must listen to God (through Scripture. prayer, and the shared wisdom of the communion of saints) in our community, even if it is only two or three.

These are words of a faithful man: For nothing can hinder God from saving by many or few. It is God who makes it happen. So whether in the majority or the minority, if we are right with God we are right. Whether in paucity or abundance, if we are used by God we have enough. The numbers are secondary. God is primary. I hope that hope rules your day.

Living in the post-Ascension World

I am following the Anglican Curmudgeon's series on Adam and Eve, science and revelation. Give it a visit at    http://accurmudgeon.blogspot.com/

I will have my own reflections on this at a later time. I do believe in an age of diminished faith and declining belief the Church has an obligation to the Lord to make our witness more effectively. It seems to me that Christians have done a poor job of addressing the issue of science. Perhaps because we live in such a divided and contentious age we prefer to yell and scream. Whatever the psycho-social cause, the underlying issue is spiritual. As St. Paul says we do battle with principalities and powers. As we say today, "there is more going on than meets the eye."

The Old Testament presents human life as conflict from the beginning (Humans are to conquer and subdue the world). In the NT, there is not much change. Jesus is described in terms which indicate that He is doing battle with Satan. He binds up demons and expels illness. Jesus lays down His life to achieve the ultimate victory. For many modern people, it is hard to grasp how the singular death of the man Jesus has any real impact on human beings living now. Obviously, many claim Jesus is a wonderful teacher of peace and love, but a closer reading of Gospels reveal a much broader and deeper picture. In fact, Jesus is combative and strong, brave and unrelenting. He is prophetic and challenging. However, the fundamental challenge He lays before us is this: your response and relationship with Me are indicative of your relationship with the only God of all creation. Theologically, this is explained by the term incarnation which means that God Himself is present fully in Jesus (in a unique and salvific way) and that there is no access to God outside of Jesus.

This is all Christianity 101. The application is the kicker. The Feast of the Ascension is a reminder that the resurrected Jesus is no longer among us in the flesh as He had been during the forty days after Easter. The absence is a real absence (even though He is still present) otherwise His return would not be a return. The absence of Jesus seems to be symbolically alluded to in the story of the storm on the sea. As Jesus sleeps through the storrm, the apostles cry out. One can see how the story evokes images of creation/the flood (wild chaotic waters) and the threats aimed at the church (the apostles/boat). Sleeping is a euphemism for death in the Gospels so it is possible to allegorically see the sleeping Jesus as "absent." Jesus upbraids the apostles for their lack of faith. This is directed more at us (as readers) than them.

The hardest thing for me to remember is that we are in the battle. I know God will win (has won), but right now the battle rages. I grow weary with doubts and worries. I get tired of myself and others. I am sometimes the worse for wear. There are times when I wonder if I have done something wrong. I wonder where the inner peace is that I hear about in the songs. I look for the manifestation of the Holy Spirit and seem to find little of the "signs and wonders" which are the mark of the early church. I wonder if I (and mine) are off the path. Where is the holiness which we are called to manifest?

Yet the perfection which is so absent in my life (and not terribly abundant in those around me) may be a manifestation of the not yet. Jesus will return to complete His work with us, but not yet. The failings of the church and its members is no proof that Jesus is ineffective. The angels said, "Why do you stand looking to heaven? Jesus will return..." The rest of the Acts of the Apostles records the early struggles. Lives were lost as sometimes God intervened to save, but other times the enemies prevailed.

That is our lives now. Sometimes glorious but more often mundane. The work of faith and love take place in the midst of the world. In our homes and at work. It can be times of spiritual dryness, church conflict and personal failure. But Jesus will be back. I think that is how God does things. I think things are unfolding and God is intervening, but I also think some of our choices and decisions are part of the ongoing creation. So what kind of world am I (contributing to) making today?

More Divine Intervention

It happened again, Thursday. We were studying the Book of Tobit, reading the chapter containing the Marriage Prayer. It is a wonderful model of Jewish prayer in the Bible, and therefore, a handy outline for our own prayer: Praise of God, thanks, reminder of God's promises, request. Lots of praise and thanks. Many couples use it at their weddings (including the wedding I had last Saturday.)

One of the lines, "I do not take her for lust but for noble purpose" led us into a long discussion about the purpose of marriage and the definition of marriage. The question of reproduction came up. I gave a brief outline of the change in understanding of what marriage is. Most were shocked at how we arrived at today's bitter battles over marriage. Once babies are out of the equation, quite simply, anything goes.

One comment that was made: "we live in bad times."

Another conversation was about the end of the world. Some guy has announced that the world will end this weekend, I think it's today. (That is why I wanted to get this last blog out before the Rapture!) I have not really followed the story, I do not believe this man knows anything about God's time table. As I told the class, "I just gave you our summer Bible study schedule, so what do you think I expect to happen?" But it has generated a great deal of interest and apparently many people have made plans for Jesus to return by selling stuff off and buying insurance to take care of their pets.

After Bible study, we celebrate eucharist. The readings are assigned in the lectionary. I never read them ahead. I am always able to come up with a brief reflection after I read/hear them. So when I read "make the most of the present time, we live in an evil age" I immediately thought of the comment above. Then the Gospel talked about, "you do not know the day nor the hour." O my!!! Two readings which were clearly reflective of our conversation. It was like God said, "Here is what I think."

We were reminded that we do live in evil times, but that is the state of the world in all times. We were reminded that the world will end, but no one knows when. Just prepare each day but avoid silly predictions.
We were reminded that so often, our Bible study discussions are connected to the lectionary readings for Mass or Morning/Evening Prayer.
We were reminded that God is at work among us. Intervening in our lives. Touching our conversations. Revealing Himself. Talking to us.
We were reminded, keep your eyes open, your ears open, your heart open: God is among us.

Biggest Problem with Contemporary Church

On Fridays in Lent we have an hour and a half "mini-retreat." Following Morning Prayer a group of us gather in the parish hall to pray over and reflect upon the daily readings. This past Friday I left afterward to grab some lunch and pick up my briefcase (and CALENDAR!) which I had left at home that morning. I came out to find Mike and Lisa working on the Dogwood tree. It is in bloom so the dead branches are most noticable. Mike was trimming and cutting and sawing.

Two hours later as I was going through my e-mails (what did priests do before e-mail!?!) I noticed one from Juli, our resident photographer. She had taken a photo of the church with the headline: A new picture of the church with the Dogwood in bloom. As is typical, her photo was lovely. It was also out of date. You see she took a picture around 10:00 that morning. By the time her photo arrived in the e-mail Mike had already done his work. The picture she took was of a tree which now looks different.

That, in a nut shell, is the problem with the contemporary church. It is always going out of date. Just as it announces to the world that it is cutting edge and up to date, someone comes along with the next new thing and the church finds itself having to reconfigure everything. The shelf life of "popular" is pretty short. Today's hot new style is tomorrow's "oh, so out of it" fashion faux pas. We live in a time where we are so much speedier and still we cannot keep up.

When I was a boy in the 70's when you took a picture, you had to wait for the whole roll to be shot before you could take it in to be developed. Then to distribute it to all your friends would take days, or weeks. And it would be costly, as each photo, each envelope, each stamp added up. Today, Juli can in a few minutes and at no extra cost shoot and send and in seconds deliver to dozens (or hundreds of friends) with her computer.
Instantaneous!

But with all that speed, she still could not send out a photo that was truly up to date and contemporary.

What church Fathers called the apostolic faith was not intended to be cutting edge or 'new-and-improved.' The early preachers certainly thought that in Jesus God was doing a new thing, but the new thing was grounded in the old thing that God had been doing, over and again, since Adam and Eve. We encounter the truth of the Triune God in the words recorded in Scripture, and the tradition and teaching of the church provides commentary on that Word. Our security is in ancient Revelation. Our reflections today allow us to understand and apply that message of hope in our own times. But it is our times which must be conformed to the message and not the message to the times.

I was at our national convention where the Epsicopal Church made a public declaration that it was breaking with traditional morality and the teaching of Scripture. Numerous speakers proclaimed that the spirit was doing a new thing. Countless delegates told me privately (and all of us publicly) that the Episcopal Church was now up to date. Young people, we were told, want a church which shares their value system. They hunger for a church which expresses the message that God is relevant. I heard, again and again, that in the days ahead a huge throng of these young people would flow into the Episcopal church because it was contemporary! I will not bore you with details, I will simply say that these (false) prophets of the coming golden age of contemporary bliss have proven to be wrong. Total attendance is down well over 10% since then and shows no sign of improvement.

But we continue on that road! The last few years we have rallied around the UN Millenial goals. We were given alternative stations of the cross. Why reflect on Jesus' passion when we have so many contemporary issues to meditate upon. The current new thing is "Green" and we have begun to proclaim the Judgment of Global Warning (oooppppss! I mean Climate change, gotta keep up). The good news is recycling is the way and renewable solar energy will be our salvation. The earth is our mother (not the church) and ecology is our theology. I am a proponent of aiding the poor of our world (our church budget allocates half our income toward aiding others) and our parish tries to practice good stewardship of resources and we do recycle. The problem is, in trying to be "with it" we are forgetting about Jesus and focusing on other things instead of Him.

And the problem is, by the time the "marketing department" figures out the next new thing, and then gets the word out to the bishops, and the bishops gather to meet, and then the bishops bring it home, and then the local leaders are trained and brought up to date and sent out to bring the parishes and missions on board, well, by the time all that has taken place it is no longer the "new thing" at all.

The problem with the contemporary church is it is trying to be up to date with "this" world (and not anything ancient). The problem is "this world" is passing away. The world is always old, even when contemporary. Jesus and His word is forever. As a citizen and life-long occupant of this world, I am drawn into the 'contemporary' and seduced by the 'relevant". The struggle is to find the TRUTH, not the new. The battle is to submit to the authority of the Lord and His Spirit, not to follow the present age and its spirit. The newest and most contemporary falsehoods are still a lie. The contemporary church, full of its own sense of "being cool," has never seen that the new thing is a very old thing. A very old, sick and destructive thing, which dressing in a diaper and being declared contemporary does not change or improve.

Kingdom of God

In my "wandering years" I struggled a great deal with the issue of "salvation outside of the church." I define church as anyone who believes in Jesus (whether they are active in church or not), which is, the body of believers. I remember reading Justin Martyr (103-165AD) who was one of the earliest Apologists for Christianity and was beheaded for the faith. I recall the sense of thrill in reading about the Logos (Word) which created the world and permeates the world. The Logos/Word became flesh in Jesus, but Justin indicated that the Logos was at work in all of creation.

Like any early church philosopher/theologian, some of Justin's thought is inaccurate. Some of what he taught would be considered in error based on later councils. So I make no claims of inerrancy or infallibility here, but I do think it helpful to know that faithful Christians (dying for the faith seems to be a fruit of that claim) have struggled with the same questions which we face today. So I conclude with the reaffirmation that there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ the Lord and I have every reason to hope that Jesus will find a way to gather into His kingdom as many people as possible. How does He do it? I am not sure. What I am sure about is the typical Christian spends precious little time and very little resources in reaching the lost for Christ. The typical Christian really is not consumed with the billions of people who do not know or trust Jesus. I also know that in most places and in most times, the behaviors of Christians (especially ministers) has driven large number of people away. The flaws of human beings are very apparent inside the church. If we are God's only hope to reach the world then God is in a tough spot.

I think the idea of Kingdom conveys a different slant on this. In Kingdom theology, there is a real sense in which God is absent. Jesus calls Satan the "prince of this world." There is a great deal of absence/presence imagery in the teaching of Jesus. There is a sense of our vocation being a time of preparation and waiting. The feel of the NT is God is coming here, to us, not that we are going there, to heaven. Death is not the passage to new life, resurrection is. "I saw coming down from heaven, a New Jerusalem!"

I believe the kingdom ethic (holiness, justice, righteousness) is a vital part of that preparation. If our focus is less on "going to heaven" (escape from here) and more about "bringing heaven to earth" then our ministries and evangelism have a different look. Our politics matters more, as does our stewardship and relationships, when this world is considered part of God's redemptive plan.

When I focus on going to heaven, I focus on me. I have to, I do not control anyone else.
When I focus on Kingdom, it is a 'we' thing. Suddenly our relationships matter because we are in it together.
When I focus on God the coming King, I am freed up from some of the nagging questions the agnostics or atheists throw out: "If God is good why is there so much evil?" I can say, "God is good and He is coming to save us. In fact, the rescue mission began long ago and reached its climax in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. He is the KING. He is the ONE in whom all our hopes are secure. Now we must, today, live as He lived, in faithful service to God and one another."

If some people enter the Kingdom after they die does that negate our work now? I think not. We are awaiting God's final deliverance, but our efforts now are vital to Him and of use to Him. So proclaiming Jesus and living as His people makes all the sense in the world. The world matters, so we preach the 'Jesus Way' to make the world more livable. The more people embrace Jesus and come to faith, the more our world will be kingdomlike and more livable. We cannot create paradise, only God can do that, but we can worship and serve God here, much better than we do now. And it is better to include all the world's inhabitants in that enterprise.

In the end, I think we must choose which quote from Jesus is our motto: "He who is not with Me is against Me" or "He who is not against us is with us." There is exegesis required to interpret each of these verses, and in a sense they refer to different things. But most of the time they end up being a motto for  us and express how we see the world. Either option can, to the extreme, create problems. Held in tension they can provide us with a gracious approach to other humans even as we welcome them into relationship with Jesus and life as His possession.

We pray "Come Lord Jesus" because we need deliverance here and now. All of us, Jew, Christian, other believer or non-believer. The gates are open and the invitations have been sent out. Many, sadly, will choose to reject the King and refuse to come to the wedding banquet. I hope most will come, even if some come late. I pray for God to have mercy on us all. And I hope to live like one who knows He is a guest by grace!

kingdom of God

The last couple of days I have written about salvation. In the Bible there are places where we are told that God loves us, that God's desire is to save us and that He wants all people to be with Him. We also know that there are numerous places where God allows people to walk away and suffer the consequences of their choices, the wrath of God. Lastly, we looked at the claim that because our actions are never perfect that God must save us by grace through our faith, but I asked the question, is there any indication that our faith is any less flawed than anything else we do?

I think some of the tension created for people is generated by how we understand the world. The basic model for most Christians that I know goes like this:

God made us to be happy with Him.
Adam (and Eve) sinned so we lost that relationship with God, now all of us suffer the fruits of Original Sin.
Every human is on the planet as a test and if we get it right when we die we can go to heaven.
Getting it right, however, is debated (some think confessing Jesus is the ticket, while others think we are judged by our works probably on a curve of some sort. There is a third group which combines the two in some form or fashion).
The key is we want to live 'right' so when we die we can go to heaven.

Ever been asked by someone, "If you died tonight do you know where you would go (for eternity)?"
Ever wondered why Jesus never asked anyone that question?

Having spent the last couple of years studying the Old Testament, I have noticed that the ancient Jews saw life differently. There is little or no discussion of "heaven" or the afterlife in the OT books. Salvation is almost always expressed globally as "God rescues Israel" or as deliverance from some personal threat. The word 'redeem' (which is an economic term for buying back a slave's freedom) is utilized as a metaphor to describe God's saving acts with Israel. [As I have shared in the past, the term "saved" and the term "healed" are the same Greek word in the NT.] With an almost exclusive focus on this present life and future generations, it is no surprise that there are even places where the OT denies that there is any life beyond the grave. I have to tell you, studying the OT as a young college seminarian was very disconcerting, because God just did not reveal the sort of info I expected based on my understanding of the world (see above, "test for heaven").

There is, however, a hunger expressed in the text. A desire to escape the current struggles and to experience shalom/peace/perfect order. The OT answer seems to be that once people submit to the rule of God and serve Him as true King, then there will by prosperity and justice. Then all will be well. The struggle between human rulers (foreign, Jewish or autonomy) and the Divine King is one of the strongest themes of the OT. The source of that struggle is rarely seen as demonic or satanic. It is, however, seen as a battle to the death.

I believe in the Kingdom of God and the resurrection of the dead. I cannot conceive that God created billions of people so as to save a small portion through a subjective, verbally confessed faith in Jesus Christ, while the vast majority serve the function of 'firewood for hell.' [Please note, I do not think my capacity to conceive or comprehend creates any limit on God. I am not saying God cannot deal with the world in that way. I am saying that I doubt that is how He deals with the world. I also think that if He does deal that way with the world that it may have pretty serious impact on our theories about godliness, mercy and justice.]

There are two streams in the OT. In one, God has set apart the Jews as His holy people. They have a mission to purify the land and to expell all the non-Jews. Extermination of the nations is a recurring demand in the Torah (see Deuteronomy, Joshua, Nehemiah). Alongside that call to isolated and holy existence is another stream. In the second stream, God calls Israel to be His people. They are set apart as His holy people. They are to be a blessing for the nations. All the nations shall stream to her temple and learn to worship God. Israel is to be a light to the world. This latter view, which is also found throughout the OT is exemplified in the promise to Abraham, late Isaiah, and some psalms.

If the world awaits God ascension to His throne on earth, then perhaps our working model of life is a bit off. Perhaps the parables of Jesus ask, when the King returns will you serve Him or resist Him? When the Son of Man judges the Nations (i.e. not Judaeo-Christians) it is based on kindnesses offered (food or drink, etc.) to others with whom Jesus self identifies. Is there some clue here?

In a kingdom spirituality, things like faith are central. Faith is our membership in the citizenry. But love suddenly matters, too, as does justice. Faith allows us entrance into the Kingdom (by God's grace) but the rules of the kingdom are still in place. There is a covenant expectation on our behavior. There are things we do and do not do. Suddenly, faith and works are subsumed in a larger concept of citizenship. This explains why Paul writes extensively of the centrality of faith and the uselessness of works in one place, only to list any number of behaviors which would exclude one from the kingdom in other places. What we do matters, even if we trust Jesus as our king. I have no illusions that I have solved every problem with this model, but I do know it seems closer to the world the Bible describes.

"Fair" 2

My last post was a fictional story about God. Like all parables it illustrates a point, but the analogy is limited. I hope it illustrated the point about fairness. That sense of "unfair" is what is at the heart of the discussion on salvation. Is it fair that God only allows people who confess Jesus as Lord go to heaven, when millions either do not know Him or find themselves in a situation where faith in Him is very difficult?

In this discussion it is vital to point out that all have sinned and no one is worthy. If you do not get that point then there is little else can be said. One of the disturbing features of the position that "everyone goes to heaven" is it fails to take seriously sin and evil. It makes it all so easy. It also ignores the holiness of God. It reduces God to our level. For those reasons I am hesitant to even push back against the 'exclusive' position.

But there is, I think, a logical challenge to the 'exclusivist' position. Let me explain. The argument generally laid out goes like this:
1. God is holy, all holy, and pure goodness.
2. People sin and alienate themselves from God.
3. God's truth and justice demands our eternal punishment.
4. Jesus has taken on our sins and the NT makes clear that He is our salvation.
5. Those who do not believe in Jesus remain in the lost state without any hope.
6. Those who have faith in Jesus are saved.

There are linguistic variations, but basically that is the argument. Today in Morning Prayer I read from Romans about the uselessness of works and the effectiveness of faith. Based on Romans, and similar NT texts, many 'exclusivists' argue that human actions alway fall short of God's perfection. Even our best acts are muddied up with various evil intentions and desires. Our good works, some would say, are dirty rags (an image of one of Israel's prophets). Dirty rags are useless. That is what our works are, useless and disgusting in comparison with the holy and good God.

Now, here is where the logical problem emerges. The word faith is used, but my question is, why are our imperfect works ineffective while our imperfect faith isn't? How is it that the feeble, impure and incomplete faith I have in Jesus is somehow enough when God's goodness makes it impossible for Him to be pleased with my imperfect works?

When people talk about Jesus to me, I often hear them say things that I know are flat wrong. The real Jesus, revealed in Scripture is quite different from the Jesus many Christians have made up in their own minds. I also know my understandind of Jesus is in flux. I have learned so much in the last few years. I expect I will continue to learn more. My ideas and beliefs have changed and will continue to change. I will never know Him fully or totally accurately.

I also know I  have doubts. Worse, there are times when I have no feelings about Him. He died for me and lots of times I do not seem to passionately care. I hunger for Him but I hunger for sin, too. I do not know how fully I believe. That leads to another issue, what exactly is 'belief'? Is it an intellectual thing? A feeling thing? An obedience thing? And if it is about obedience aren't we back into the realm of works?

YIKES! So many questions.....
I want to leave it there for today. I think it worth pondering: what is faith? Who is Jesus? How right do we need to be about Jesus and how perfectly must we believe in order to be saved? And at what point is believing just another human activity, a work, of an imperfect, sinful soul? In light of these questions, I think there is an opening, to discuss the question. If Christians do not fully know Jesus and fully have faith in Jesus, is it possible that the same graciousness that God extends to us can also be extended to those who did not know Him, yet desired to please Him (without knowing it was Him) and relied on Him for life eternal (even though they had never heard of grace). It boils down to the question: where does GOD draw the line?

And to muddy it up even more, is 'deciding about heaven' really the point of Jesus' life and work?